The gang rape and the Republicans by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The gang rape and the Republicans

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2138
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 16, 2009 5:35 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is an excerpt from a Mark Morford column that just came out. I knew about the story, but nonetheless got some satisfaction (as little as is possible, given the subject) from reading this. Will be interesting to see how it's dismantled by some here.

Quote:
Behold, 30 U.S. senators who don't give a damn about battered women

Here is freshman Minnesota senator Al Franken's first-ever legislative action, a relatively simple, almost laughably surefire bill requiring the Pentagon no longer do business with any contractor -- hi, Halliburton! -- that requires its employees to agree that she cannot sue said contractor if she is, oh let's just say, gang raped by its employees.

You read that right. It's a can't-sue-us-if-you're-raped clause. In a U.S. government contract. Aimed squarely at Halliburton. Thanks, Dick Cheney!

First, you are required to get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Dick Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

But that's not most the repellant part. Ready?

The most repellant part is the 30 U.S. senators -- Republicans each and every one -- who just stepped forth to vote against the Franken amendment, essentially saying no, women should have no right to sue if they are sexually abused or gang raped, Halliburton and its ilk must be protected at all costs, and by the way we hereby welcome Satan into our rancid souls forevermore. God bless America.

Let us repeat, for clarity. Franken's amendment passed with a vote of 68-30. Meaning 30 U.S. senators voted against the elimination of the rape/sue clause. Meghan McCain, call your dad. He's one of them.

Here is where you try and do it. Here is where you try to figure out where to slot such wretched information, how to make even the slightest sense of it.

And then you discover a horrible truth: you can't. Turns out, when faced with such vileness, all filters fail. All balance is thrown off. You thought you had some sort of way to process and attain perspective? You are proven wrong.

So perhaps all we can do is ponder how pathetic and sad these various senator's lives must be, how these bitter old men will now go home at night and announce around the dinner table that, yes, today they worked very hard to help improve the welfare of the nation by essentially enabling rape and sexual abuse, tried their darndest to prevent women who've been viciously attacked from having much legal recourse. And lo, Satan will chuckle happily.

Then maybe these senators will try and hug their wives, or their daughters. And maybe, if there's any justice in the universe, their wives and daughters will slap them as hard as humanly possible, lock them in a shipping container, and never let them touch them again.

P.S.; Would you like a complete list of these 30 senators' names? Right here.

Why look, there's grandpa McCain. There's disgraced man-child John Ensign. Hooker-lovin' David Vitter. Saxby Chambliss. Inhofe. It's a veritable welfare-state who's who of Dick Cheney's sanctum of oily fluffers, and many more who would love to be. Shall we write a nice letter to them? Or maybe their wives and daughters?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 16, 2009 5:42 PM

BYTEMITE

I don't like Republicans, but the chances that they actually READ what they were voting about was probably very low. Be glad that it passed and the number of no votes weren't HIGHER.

I'd also be more angry at Halliburton. What a BUNCH of SCUMBAGS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 16, 2009 5:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I am not all surprised, even have a pet peeve along the same lines myself.

Quote:
Current bill is H.R. 911
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-911
http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr911

Bear in mind the cost of this to Americans would be $1 a YEAR, for four years.
While we're pouring billions down the drain for war and bailouts.

I mean, damn, I can spare a buck to put the brakes on the hellcamps, you know ?

As for Helliburnin...

They learned it from DynCorp, who learned it from Wackenhut, who learned it from Pinkertons...
And you can just keep goin with that, far back as history exists, it's why PMCs are and always will be creeps, really - Johann Tserclaes, Count of Tilly being a particularly offending example, and not without a great deal of company in his chosen line of work, most Condottieri really WERE creeps, and so were their men.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 16, 2009 10:21 PM

MANGOLO

I think those 30 Repubs should be charged with aiding and abetting a known rapist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 16, 2009 10:59 PM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
the chances that they actually READ what they were voting about was probably very low.

And that is almost as disgusting as the issue itself. You should never vote on something you haven't read. Just as, clearly, no one should sign a contract they haven't read. Making laws shouldn't be some casual thing where you show up and have a drink, maybe read the cliff notes if you're feeling really diligent, and throw darts at your party's respective board.
I know Michael Moore is not the most popular of people, but maybe more people should adopt his strategy of reading legislation through a bullhorn. Clearly something needs to be done.
Whoever wrote the original clause should be drawn and fucking quartered. And they never should have gotten away with it. A criminal charge shouldn't be legally dismissed by a contract clause. Are they also allowed to let all their drivers go without insurance? Kill people? Anything they want to do as long as it's in their contracts??? No. That sort of thing must be stopped, and never should have been allowed in the first place.

This sort of thing makes me just

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 16, 2009 11:15 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I don't like Republicans, but the chances that they actually READ what they were voting about was probably very low.

Can they even read?

BTW all unconscionable contracts are void. It's a bluff. Like ticket stubs that allege you can't sue becuz you bought a ticket. BS. Jedi Mind Freak.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 1:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Byte: Maybe it's time for some legislation that REQUIRES the presence of congresspeople for the reading of any bills that come up for a vote, and if they aren't there for the reading, they don't get to vote.

And tie their pay and benefits to their attendance. "Sorry, Senator- you only attended readings of 30% of bills that came up in the latest session. Here's your paycheck for that 30% - and here's a bill for 70% of your healthcare coverage."

Just a thought...

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What does the no-sue contract actually say?

What did the bill actually say?

And what happened to this poor woman? Did she get justice? Did she sue the individuals involved? Did she bring them up on charges and send them to jail?

There's so much I'd like to know about this.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Here's the bill, (actually an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill HR.3326):

Quote:
SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

And the victim, Jamie Lee Jones, will get her day in court.
http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1754

If you really wanna get scared, google "mandatory arbitration"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:56 AM

TDBROWN

This kind of corporate behavior is widespread, and is not limited to sexual harrassment and rape. Most large corporations try to "Lawsuit-proof" themselves. In Indiana, you can't sue a certain large corp if you get injured on the job. It's in the contract, and even legislated in the law. As long as the employee attends a "job safety" lecture once a year (and a "harrassment" lecture too, come to think of it), the corporation is exempt from liability lawsuits.

It's true. A friend of mine had his fingers cut off on company machinery. His fingers were re-attached, and the company insurance paid for about half the cost. My friend still suffers stiffness and a great deal of pain, but he has been informed that the Company's liability ended with the surgery assistance.

So the "Gang Rape Clause" is just the tip of the iceberg.

"Might have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." -Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 5:38 AM

ASARIAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

First, you are required to get over your initial disgust that such legislation is even necessary, that such clauses even exist and that the Pentagon is already doing business with such contractors (hi, Halliburton/KBR!), and that there has already been a truly horrible case validating it, wherein a 20-year-old female employee was allegedly gang-raped by contractors, locked in a shipping container, abused every way from Sunday, and found out later she was unable to sue.

Let us pause to imagine if, say, Wal-Mart had such a clause. Or maybe Toys 'R' Us. Starbucks. Let us imagine the appalled outcry. But Halliburton? Dick Cheney's vile little spitwad of shameless war profiteering? No problem. Hey, it's Republican-endorsed military contracting. No one said it was ethical.

Dick Cheney and his Halliburton always make me think of The Godfather 2, when Maffia's topman Hyman Roth talk about being in business with the corrupt Cuban government:

"What I am saying is, we have now what we have always needed, real partnership with the government."

Halliburton has managed to establish such a relationship with the U.S. government. War profiteering, sexual assault, robbing, these are severe criminal offences in any civilized country. But under Bush big business has essentially been given a licence to pillage, plunder, and rape with impunity.

Quote:

Here is where you try and do it. Here is where you try to figure out where to slot such wretched information, how to make even the slightest sense of it.

So true. Even when I say the above, part of me is trying to fight it off, trying to relativate it. But the unimaginable is all true.

Quote:

And then you discover a horrible truth: you can't. Turns out, when faced with such vileness, all filters fail. All balance is thrown off. You thought you had some sort of way to process and attain perspective? You are proven wrong.

Yep, that's exactly what's happening inside my head now. You try and reason they can't be ALL bad. And yet, there it is: out of the 68-30 cast, all Republicans voted on the side of evil; not a one had a conscience!

What happened? People have known, for a long time, that America is essentially run by big business. Now, this is, in and by itself, not immediately evil: after all, in a capitalist state it's only logical that those with the most capital will have the most influence (like the, overall benign, Blue Sun corp: they're huge, but as a whole not all-out evil per se). Under Bush, though, seems effectively a Coup took place: gross criminal conduct by big corporations has become sanctioned, backed up by Republican Senators who make every bit of sane action against these folks go away, along with introducing legislation now, apparently, that allows them to rape women.

As an outsider, I can only say: this situation in your country needs to be normalized. The Coup needs to be essentially reverted. Big corps, like Microsoft, or Haliburton, should become answerable again to the people, like everyone else. Cuz now it's madness. In point of fact.

--
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night." Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's the bill, (actually an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill HR.3326):

Quote:
SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

And the victim, Jamie Lee Jones, will get her day in court.
http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1754

If you really wanna get scared, google "mandatory arbitration"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

I see nothing objectionable in the Bill, and wonder why anyone would oppose it?

How did the House vote on this? I have a horse I'm betting on in that venue.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 8:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I see nothing objectionable in the Bill, and wonder why anyone would oppose it?

Only question I'd have is about the "... or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention." bit. This could end up being either a reasonable "I complained to management about harrassment and nothing was done to prevent the assualt so I'm suing the company", or the more tenuious "The company hired this guy and he assaulted me, so it's the company's fault and I'm suing them", especially if the guy in question had no record or history of assaults.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 9:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As always, negligence is determined by the courts, and is an essential leg of any civil lawsuit. So, negligence would be at issue regardless.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Y'all DO remember me saying that any attempt at reconciliation with the Republicans would be a fregmekkin disaster and the smartest them to do would be put the boot in while they're down and finish em off, right ?

You convinced yet ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:34 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You convinced yet ?

Always was, my man.

BTW, got hit by a car last month on my bicycle because I wasn't watching the road well enough. Just cuts n' bruises, but this is the part that kicks my ass: the guy driving the car couldn't BELIEVE I didn't want to exchange info. He kept insisting that we should. I was freakin' OKAY!!!
We've trained our sheep well, eh?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 17, 2009 2:31 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Chris,

It may have been in his best interests to get a report filed right then, for legal purposes.

Because if you were wrong about being okay, or you were a spiteful human being, you could fuck him so thoroughly that he'd be feeling it for the rest of his life.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:20 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nice to see the replies. I wondered if there would be anyone who would actually SUPPORT this move; I'm glad to find nobody did.

When they removed funding from ACORN, I found it amusing that it's unconstitutional to do so, ergo somebody's gonna fight it, and that if they want to de-fund organizations that "break the law" in general (the only way it would be constitutional), there were going to be propsals that then they'd have to de-fund ALL the contractors, etc., who've broken the law...like Lockheed, Blackwater (et al), etc. Would love to see it tried.

This one is particularly egregious to me and left me disgusted. Happy to see I'm not alone! Now let's go after those bastards holding naked parties while "guarding" in Kabul!

And yes, Chris, I agree with Mike...if you later found something had been damaged, without exchanging info, etc., you could come back at him big time; in this litigious society, best to cover all bases, sadly...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:42 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

And yes, Chris, I agree with Mike...if you later found something had been damaged, without exchanging info, etc., you could come back at him big time; in this litigious society, best to cover all bases, sadly...

Small point of clarification - that was Anthony, not me. Credit where it's due, and all that.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 26, 2009 11:58 AM

DREAMTROVE

Pretty easy potshot spotlight pick for Franken. If I were him I'd be back peddling on the whole "war hawk" thing. The fact is that we contract with corporations who *kill* people, and do so intentionally, and that's what we contract them to do, and not just our target enemies, but even our own soldiers.

Sorry, still no patience for Franken, who I figure will only be around until some sex scandal spills about him. Careful what you crusade for...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE